House settlement

1,044 Views | 9 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by calumnus
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks done:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/06/06/federal-judge-approves-2-8b-settlement-meaning-us-colleges-will-pay-athletes-millions/

The hangup was roster size, the solution was current walk-ons could continue without counting against new roster limits.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

Looks done:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/06/06/federal-judge-approves-2-8b-settlement-meaning-us-colleges-will-pay-athletes-millions/

The hangup was roster size, the solution was current walk-ons could continue without counting against new roster limits.


The exemption for current walk-ons might be why Madsen added so many to the roster last year.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dumb question - why was this something (roster caps) that the university wanted?
StillNoStanfurdium
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

Dumb question - why was this something (roster caps) that the university wanted?
I think the schools wanted some kind of cap on spending and revenue sharing in terms of parity? People didn't like that in the current system some schools would circumvent the scholarship limits and hoard talent by using NIL to equal scholarship value. So given that reality the more effective way to limit team sizes would be a hard roster cap instead of the scholarship mechanism.

There will still potentially be inequality when it comes to schools who can offer more NIL, if vetted properly, because I can imagine that the majority of schools (and maybe even the big players) don't mind a certain degree of cost-limiting that will take place with roster caps in an attempt to slow the spending arms race (especially now that sports revenue will need to be shared which means schools won't keep as much money to operate either).
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Congress may be on it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2025/06/09/ncaa-antitrust-protection/
4thGenCal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

stu said:

Looks done:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/06/06/federal-judge-approves-2-8b-settlement-meaning-us-colleges-will-pay-athletes-millions/

The hangup was roster size, the solution was current walk-ons could continue without counting against new roster limits.


The exemption for current walk-ons might be why Madsen added so many to the roster last year.
Exactly and look for the staff to now pursue adding a very good walk on. Since those prior one's kept, do not count against the roster limits.
barsad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
On that note, does anyone know why all of last year's walkons except BJ Fisher disappeared from the roster? With the House settlement rule and Madsen's last-year preference for fielding a bunch of guys in sweats and no uniforms every game, I would have thought they keep those guys.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barsad said:

On that note, does anyone know why all of last year's walkons except BJ Fisher disappeared from the roster? With the House settlement rule and Madsen's last-year preference for fielding a bunch of guys in sweats and no uniforms every game, I would have thought they keep those guys.


I think it is because they entered the Portal, so they are technically still recruitable athletes. Madsen will welcome them back, but Cal cannot list them until they are enrolled in Summer or Fall classes.
barsad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All the walkons entered the Portal (cue up that Star Trek portal graphic)?
If that's the case then I really don't get how Portal recruiting works. A walkon at Cal who may have zero real minutes on a college floor thinks another school will make a scholarship offer with only high school stats to work with?
I personally don't think a 15-scholarship roster needs a practice squad of walkons, let them compete hard against each other.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barsad said:

All the walkons entered the Portal (cue up that Star Trek portal graphic)?
If that's the case then I really don't get how Portal recruiting works. A walkon at Cal who may have zero real minutes on a college floor thinks another school will make a scholarship offer with only high school stats to work with?
I personally don't think a 15-scholarship roster needs a practice squad of walkons, let them compete hard against each other.

Just speculating;
1. There is no cost to enter the Portal. A walk-on has no scholarship to lose.
2. The Portal does not indicate whether you had a scholarship. Coming from a P4 school, even with no PT, looks good on the resume.
3. The player may have grown or added strength since high school, making them more attractive to prospective schools.
4. The player may have chosen to walk-on at Cal vs a scholarship at D2 thinking they could earn PT, a scholarship and compete in the ACC, but now realize that is not going to happen.
5. The player may be looking for another situation where top academics and basketball are easier to balance.

The key is #1

As for the value of walk-ons for practice: 5 walk-ons lets you practice 2 games of 5 on 5 without anyone spending practice just watching from the sideline. It is better for conditioning, developing your 11-15 players (the guys who need the most game experience). They do not cost the program a scholarship, travel, or any other appreciable cost.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.